Father Jiang Is Vindicated

A few years ago, I mentioned in this space an ongoing case in St. Louis in which Father Joseph Jiang, a Catholic priest, had been accused of sexual misconduct, and his bishop of covering it up. I am happy to report that Father Jiang has been vindicated in the face of these accusations, and more — a lot more:

An advocacy group has issued an apology to a St. Louis priest for “any false or inaccurate statements” regarding allegations of abuse, after criminal charges against him were dropped and subsequent lawsuits were settled or dismissed.

The Archdiocese of St. Louis published the apology from the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests (SNAP) on Monday.

“The SNAP defendants never want to see anyone falsely accused of a crime. Admittedly, false reports of clergy sexual abuse do occur. The SNAP defendants have no personal knowledge as to the complaints against Fr. Joseph Jiang and acknowledge that all matters and claims against Fr. Jiang have either been dismissed or adjudicated in favor of Fr. Jiang,” the group stated.

SNAP also apologized for the harm that false accusations can cause to the priest as well as to the Catholic Church as a whole.

“SNAP apologizes for any false or inaccurate statements related to the complaints against Fr. Joseph Jiang that it or its representatives made which in any way disparaged Fr. Joseph Jiang, Archbishop Robert J. Carlson, Monsignor Joseph D. Pins and the Archdiocese of St. Louis,” the group stated.

A statement from the Archdiocese of St. Louis said the apology was issued “as part of a settlement with the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests (SNAP) in a defamation lawsuit filed by Father Jiang in 2015.”

Criminal charges filed against Father Xiu Hui “Joseph” Jiang, after an allegation of abuse, were dismissed in 2015. Jiang had also passed a polygraph test, during which he denied that he had ever abused a minor, according to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch.

More:

In 2016, a federal judge ruled that SNAP had made false statements against Fr. Jiang “negligently and with reckless disregard for the truth.”

I didn’t know that. Poor Father Jiang. Another reason to keep in mind that there are two sides of the story in these cases.

Here’s what I think I’ve seen regarding the Catholic Church’s sex abuse scandal: It has actually been an evolving scandal over the decades. In my thinking it has had these major phases in the USA (rough and overlapping timeframes given):

Phase 1 1920s – 1960s: The Church was completing conforming to a great degree to the non-/anti- Christian culture at large. This resulted in

Phase 2, 1950s – 1970s: Church leadership accepting the prevailing views of sexuality disorders as primarily sociological or psychiatric challenges, instead of primarily moral and spiritual matters. So, bishops, seminary rectors, etc., began to admit unsuitable candidates to the priesthood, thinking that was the kind and progressive thing to do. Then, when bishops first became aware of the resulting problems, I imagine at first in those early days they weren’t sure what to do with these guys. After all, society’s “experts” in those days assured us that they could “cure” these men, and so the bishops unwisely put far too much trust in treatment. (I think we all did back then.)

Phase 3, 1980s – 1990s: By this time the bishops had to have known that their prior faith in medical and psychiatric treatment was sadly misplaced. This is the phase where I think the most awful part of the scandal is: By now the bishops knew they needed to ignore the “experts” and take action against these priests, and openly admit prior mistakes. Instead, they too often chose to move these guys around and cover things up.

Phase 4, 2000 – the present time: Now the bishops have pretty much learned that keeping these guys in ministry is wrong, that it is wrong to even have them in the seminary, and that moving them around and covering up won’t work anymore. But, I worry that there is a different scandal brewing now: The scandal of falsely accused priests. In this century, I fear the bishops may have in many cases succumbed to enormous pressure put upon them by their diocesan attorneys and by their insurance companies to “just settle” when the priest was in fact innocent. I wonder how many cases are out there of an innocent priest falsely accused, but the diocese decided that it would just be legally and financially safer to sacrifice him. I don’t know that anyone is advocating for the poor men caught up in this kind of situation.

I’m as rabid as anyone can be on clergy sex abuse but readily agree there are two sides to every story. If a priest has been cleared after an accusation then that fact should be shouted from the rooftops.

NFR: I don’t believe Roy Moore. There is no hard proof that he did what he’s accused of, but there’s strong evidence

How does the evidence against Moore compare to the evidence against Jiang? Follow the logic of your own post.

[NFR: I wouldn’t have voted for Father Jiang either if he were running for office under that cloud of formal accusation. If we’re talking about convicting Roy Moore of a crime, then I agree that the evidence is not there, or at least it hasn’t been submitted to a court of law. He must be considered innocent until proven guilty *as a legal matter*. Same with Father Jiang. But if the evidence against Father Jiang caused some serious doubt about his innocence before his trial, I would have erred on the side of caution. Same with Roy Moore (who I believe is unfit for other reasons, incidentally). — RD]

Even though SNAP apologized under pain of a lawsuit, they put a bit more into the language than the desultory minimum. Its good to see them recognizing that guilty until proven innocent can be as great an evil as covering up real crimes.

It is not OK to persecute a lot of innocent people just to make sure nobody guilty escapes (which some will anyway). It is also not OK to exonerate the accused as a class because some of those accused will turn out to be innocent.